From: Adrian Howard <adrianh@...>
Date: 2006-11-30T00:54:15+09:00
Subject: Re: OT: Licensing (was Re: Is ruby a viable corporate alternative?)


On 29 Nov 2006, at 13:46, pat eyler wrote:

> On 11/28/06, Ken Bloom <kbloom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Consider yourself warned that Ruby doesn't have any native  
>> compiler (like
>> perlcc for perl) or bytecode compiler, so if you're releasing your  
>> code
>> to the world, you have no practical way to protect your investment  
>> (yet).
>
> Funny, I get the protection that I want from the GPL (others might  
> want
> to substitute there own FLOSS license).
[snip]

Ditto.

Come to that the amount of commercial Perl code that I've seen using  
perlcc over the last ten years comes to about zero :-) Not saying it  
never happens, but seems to be pretty darn rare if it is.

Adrian